ABSTRACT
This article explores the notion that peoples speaking Austronesian languages brought the ideology of social hierarchy based on hereditary leadership into the Pacific Islands. This social model contrasts with the strongly egalitarian leadership that likely characterised peoples already residing in New Guinea and nearby islands. While complex interactions between these two groups did occur, particularly in coastal areas, the latter populations rarely adopted hierarchical models of leadership. In contrast, the institution of hereditary leadership burgeoned into elaborate chiefdoms as Austronesian speakers expanded into Remote Oceania. Using linguistic and archaeological evidence, we argue that hereditary leadership, or the institutions to support it, may already have been in place in early Austronesian societies in Taiwan. We further evaluate this correlation by reviewing ethnographic reports of chiefs and reanalysing scholarly appraisals of big-man societies and chiefdoms. We conclude that the ‘Melanesian big-man vs. Polynesian chief’ contrast corresponds largely to the Austronesian and Non-Austronesian language divide; attention to which can clarify the development of hereditary leadership in the Pacific and illuminate historical relations among cultures in Near Oceania.
Acknowledgements
This article stems from a discussion between the authors in a spring 2009 Pacific Ethnology seminar at the Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful readings and valuable suggestions, and Kun-Hui Ku and Thomas Gibson for organising this special issue.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 It should be noted that the Thao people in Taiwan actually have a hereditary chiefly position called daduu. Its linguistic relationship with *datu begs for further investigation.